University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury - Page 8

[QUOTE=solipsism;1433634]
Stalling is stalling


You constantly stated that iPhone didn't need MMS and was not the way to go. And now it is here both text and pics.


You distort- you constantly stated the MBA was the choice for a smaller powerful laptop and that Apple would not go the route of the SOny TT series. It has now with the 13" and esp with the SD slot.


Again you change with the wind- you said firewire was being phased out and USB was the way to go.



You the one who said you wanted an iPod that talks to you- not me. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Look, I already explained my rationale yesterday. I'm fine if you don't agree with that. If what you want are some Apple internal fact sheets or documents to back myself, I don't have any, but same as you and others who believe that Apple just simply wants to provide an extra option for users to choose from.

It's just funny to see how people take the sentence "many ignorant users like glossy screen" as "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap".

If you people just can't figure out that many products that you think are good might have many ignorant users as well, that's fine with me. I can't stop you from embarrassing yourself.

That is also what I questioned as well and I haven't seen any valid answers from those who believe that Apple just simply wants to provide more options for the users. Someone gave me a crappy answer like "17" model has been the only one to have matte option since Apple shifted to glossy screen. That's why." which is obviously not a valid answer.

All anticipated products dont sell as well after the initial rush. You and mechengit need to learn that words have meaning, you should think before you type and that no amount of backpedaling is going to help when there is written proof of your lies all over the place.


I said its a rip off that shouldnt be used until the price gouging is stopped. I dont make absolute statements about how things shouldnt be included at all or how no one needs this. I dont see the work through my own selfish need.s


Apple has not gone the route of the Sony TT. The TT is considerablt slower than even the MBA and only has an 11 display. Why arent crying that its netbook that costs too much.


FW400. Readng comprehension is important if you ever want to venture into there real world. I even gave you posts from when I said exactly that and speculated that FW800 would come back when the bottom case was sealed. That was posted back in 2008. How many times can you be wrong at once and how many arguments can you lose before you realize that youll need to start thinking one of these days?


Yes, I wanted an iPod that uses VoiceOver. I am getting that with the iPhone 3GS and everyone will get that with all the new iPods coming out later this year. Per my history I speculated what would likely be the next move for a company to make and I was right. You can hate me all you want for being right but you cant deny it.

I know the University study is a little silly. But I completely agree that the glossy screens are a pain. In fact, I waited for the aluminum iMac to come out, took one look at the screen and ordered an older white plastic 2.16 with the non-glare screen. I really don't understand why Apple has abandoned non glare as an option. This is a rare step back in ergonomics, and a medium sized blunder as far as I am concerned.

I don't hate you or anyone/thing at all. But I would never call you selfish for getting what you want yet that's all you call me and others when we get what we want. And you always deny when we are right and you are wrong which is expecially true on this glossy/matte issue. You refuse to acknowledge that the 17" matte was the only one because it came last. You continually stated that matte was never going to come back. Why don't you just admit it and get it over with? COme on- you can do it!

I have the white iMac and will continue to keep it until Apple gets a matte version for the new one. And we are not alone on this matter. That big sheet of glare will never grace my home.

I don’t call you selfish for that, I call you selfish for thinking what you want is the only want that should matter. I call you other things for wording your replies as absolutes, not as opinions, speculation, projections, assumption, or any other unmodifiable term.

And for being right…

• "FW3200 running at 3.2Gbps should arrive around, if not before USB3.0 and be about 2x as fast again, so the FW800 port design may still live on.” (10-16-2008)

• "But they are built-into the analog audio input and output so it's not wasted space. Apple supports USB1,0 still, but if USB2.0 used a different port I bet USB1.0 would have been dropped long ago. FW800 will probably stay as FW3200 gets added to the Pro end. (10-15-2008)

• "Engineering wise, it's a dead-end tech. Within a year we should get USB3.0 with no change to the port plugs and will pobably be added within a year. FW400 was dying and we watching it struggle to breath for years now, but we're mad that Apple has finally started to put it out its misery." (10-17-2008)

• "I think FW3200 and USB3.0 will be added, but that makes since because it's a future forward interface standard, using an already used port type. FW400 was a dead end and it's a shame that Apple didn't design FW400's interface standard to be grow as the speed grows” (10-17-2008_

• "Will they remove FW400 from the consumer desktops, while leaving the FW800? It's a toss up since they clearly have the room, but I'm leaning toward the removal to show that FW400 as a port interface is dead.” (11-03-2008)

• "A bit off topic, but I if the next MB and MBP have a non-user replaceable battery we may see more ports added to them. Like an additional USB and a FW800 because they could build farther down the sides if they aren't trying to make it look clean and simple when you pop the cover. Here's hoping.” (04-27-2009)

• "It's the FW400 port standard that is dying, not FW. The proof is the complete lack of support from Apple and the final last move to remove it completely from their Macs after a slow, painful death. (10-17-2008)

Seriously, that took two seconds and I found two of many posts that well predates the 13” MBP release. With Google at your fingertips you might want to use it. It’s quite handy. Now you can go seethe at being foiled again, but I quite having an opponent I can always win against.

No, you do not need to explain those definitions. Even if you had to, this would hardly be a solid basis for deducing that I am "clueless and hopeless".

You still have not provided a logical, coherent justification for your assertion that a particular NYC Apple Store uses older Cinema Displays because of "NO GLARE!". My thesis is that they are being frugal and I explained how I got to it. Once again: do you have more information or arguments to support your opinion?

PS I note that instead of direct personal attacks you now resort to conditional name calling. I imagine that you think that this is safer. I hope that the moderators prove you wrong.

I rest my case.

Notice how you've failed to address the matte/glossy argument that you've lost.

Just my personal experience :

After TWO years of waiting for a powerfulI laptop, I was finally ready to buy a new 15" MBP. So I went to the Apple Store in my town (Montreal), two days ago, and played 1 hour on the machine. Seeing all the reflections on the screen, I finally said to myself : "I don't buy this $hit !".

Too bad. I'll wait again until the screens are made descent. Currently, I can't stand them. >:-(

No you don't. You avoid the debate because you have no arguments. You might find it useful to look up the word you triumphantly highlighted.

That has been addressed many times, but I suppose when reading comprehension is low repetition is needed.

Fact: Glossy and matte each have their pros and cons.

Fact: Some people prefer matte over glossy and vice versa.

Fact: Apple has chosen to only offer matter as a paid upgrade for only one of their notebooks.

Opinion: "ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.” or “many, if not most, customers who like glossy screens are ignorant"

Opinion: I know some fans of matte on this forum that personify ignorance.

I’m on babysitting duty today so I have nothing else to do any no where else I can go for the next 8 hours.

Perhaps you missed this from Blah64:


I suggest you read it then comprehend it. End of story.
Common sense, my friend, common sense. No "thesis" required.

Fact: You emphatically stated - no more mattes -last fall. One has since been manufactured and more will follow. You will see. And then how will your weasel you way out of it?
Admit it- admit it? You can do it.

If it’s a fact, produce a single post where i said Apple will never produce another matte displays. Note, finding a post that states my preference for glossy is not a Teckstudian disdain for matte, nor is concrete statement that matte is going away forever. One day, you’ll realize that Apple is not your company and that your wishes do not always reflect their wishes. Matte will come if there is a substantial enough market for for them to justify it. That is how business works.

Remember, it’s Teckstudian logic that only thinks in absolutes, most people use qualifiers and variables wen making predictions.

Mechingit your continual attempt to hide behind logical argument is just a joke. To be honest, I get the impression that you don't really understand the logical terms you are using, but you certainly seem to think you are some kind of super genius for your logic observations here. So, let's break it down and get to the core of what you say you were attempting to communicate, as opposed to what you accuse others of arguing you did communicate: Apparently, your argument is that you have 'deduced' that some consumers buy some products out of ignorance of some of the pros and cons of said products.

Is that correct? You are laying claim to that bit of intellectual achievement?

If that is what you are attempting to communicate, then thank you for the pointless observation. I think we all could have reached that conclusion without your help. However, you, I, and (I suspect) most others here know that is not what you were attempting to communicate. Here is what I suspect: I suspect that what is really going on, under the veneer of logical argument you want to hide behind, is that you think that making the choice for a matte screen, or at least a less reflective glossy, is the superior choice, and you believe that people who have chosen otherwise have done so because they are ignorant of the factors that you considered when coming to your conclusion. Your reasoning is based on the assumption of your own logical infallibility; it revolves around you and what you think. It is not 'logical' and it is certainly what could be considered 'faulty deduction.' It is also quite narcissistic and juvenile.

Wrong. Where is the market for the failing shuffle? Where is the market for the AppleTV?

Right and that's the reason why firewire was omitted then re-instated. You are so full of it. Stop already- you are embarassing yourself!

1) You say that its failing from reading a report that sales have subsided months after the initial launch. That is not the mentality of an adult to speak in such terms, at least not where I grew up.

2) The AppleTV is a hobby, its a placeholder for Apples media in your home. Not everything has to sell like the iPod to be a success. It also appears to be the most successful standalone media extender appliance on the market.

I have read it and it is a good point. Reformulating it: in a badly lit training room/area in which students share screens and the displays have glare issues, some students won't be able to see well.

I have not recently visited that particular store so I do not know if these conditions are met. Assume that they are: does this make it a fact that Apple use the old displays because of this possible problem? Only Apple knows. So, why state your opinion in CAPS categorically as if it were fact? Why attack others who said "well, there is another plausible reason". And finally, just because someone with reasoning ability came to your rescue with a plausible justification, does this make it "End of story"? So we are supposed to shut up and accept this as fact, are we?

PS Having looked up the word "thesis" you are not quite so sure that you knew what it meant now, are you?

FW400 was removed from a MB. FW has never left the MBP line. As stated in the posts you continually fail to read, I predicted this move many times over.

PS: I am simply fascinated by whatever it is that make it impossible to comprehend the English language. Or is it your inability to admit when you are wrong despite the evidence presented to you. Rod Blagojevich could learn from you.

PPS: Dont you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?

In what way do these questions possibly address the very simple request below?

Apparently you keep dodging my points and keep bringing your subjective feeling of what you think/want me to say.

You and solipsism again and again failed to quote any wording like "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or "all glossy screens are crap" from me, but continually accusing me of saying those. The quote you keep bringing up is "many ignorant users like glossy screen" which your misunderstanding is derived from. That apparently does not mean "all glossy screen users are ignorant" or whatsoever. This is more than obvious that you are making the deduction based on what you want me to say.



How convenient... you and those who responded me negatively represent the most others, based on what you suspect? Oh, let's ignore those who actually understand what I'm really saying because that doesn't match with what you suspect.


Isn't this apparent that what you think I mean is based on what you suspect and what you think/want me to say, not even hard facts or quotes? Accusing me of making deduction while coming up with a deduction that is based on what you suspect? I rest my case.

Is this what I should expect from someone who have a solid record of misreading what I said earlier? Randomly questioning me the comparison of matte and glossy cost even though I didn't mention a word about such comparison? Seriously, now he is telling me that he represents the "most others"? I hope that isn't the case.

The actual issue, mech, is that you do not have a point. If you do, I encourage you to make it right now, succinctly and directly. What is your argument?

it doesn''t- who said it did?

Why would Apple use their old technology they don't sell anymore? Think before you write.

For crying out loud, I'm doing this pointless defense because you folks started the tangent of accusing me of saying something that I have not said in the first place.

I emphasized my points/arguments several times, but you kept accusing me of backpedaling yet you have failed to prove that I have said anything that you think I backpedaled from.

What I'm trying to say is that Apple is not addressing the acknowledged glare issue that can be fixed or improved on particular on the Macbook Pro glossy screens because many ignorant users like the glossy screen and they are either not able to acknowledge or just simply ignoring the glare issue on Macbook Pros which is an ignorant action itself, especially when the glare issue is something that Apple can fix but chose not to. If you don't agree that the glare on the Macbook Pros is an issue or anyone should be bothered by it, that is fine with me.

However... pulling statements out from thin air and accusing me of saying such statements is simply wrong.

Am I saying or implying that all glossy screens have no pros or advantages at all? No.
Am I saying or implying that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant? No.

Just because there are many ignorant users that use a certain product does not mean that the product itself is necessarily bad. This is a simple logic.

Are you a ROBOT? You keep spewing the same tired mantra whenever someone backs you into a corner:


Only a ROBOT would say anything that asinine over and over. What's next: " Danger- Aliens approaching!" ?? Geesh!

If you ever question anything that Apple currently does not have or issues Apple has problems with - you will be attacked. Pay them no mind. They can't think for themselves- plain and simple.

I know why Apple choose to go glossy.

It's because HP, Apple's former ally, wanted to storm into the consumer market (Apple's turf) and was first to introduce this glossy crap. HP found out that people are suckers for shiny objects with bright colors and it increased sales.

So it sort of forced Apple's hand, but that doesn't excuse the reason for not offering a matte option on all their models either.

Some people don't have as such a strong command of the English language as others. So one has to make allowances and look for the true meaning when reading others posts, or ask them to clarify it, or just ignore it if it's a problem.

No sense going round and round about it.

Right?

I thought it was to get a better (GOLD) rating from EPEAT due to the fact that it's now an arsenic free display that needs glass on its front which decomposes easier. All AL Gore BS.

Go to any MacWorld or Consumer Reports review of Apple products and what do you see in the Con column? "GLOSSY SCREENS."
I Can't help it if you don't know how to read. End of story.

Closing your post with "think before you write" does not lend additional credibility to your opinion. Stop resorting to personal attacks. I do think, I just have a different opinion. You have not provided additional arguments, you repeat the question as if it had an obvious, single answer: the one you like. It does not.

If there were a problem (as far as Apple are concerned) with the new displays, perhaps it would not be so good to draw attention to it by using "old technology". Do I hear you saying "Nonsense, it's not that old and it is just for training, who would notice?". Precisely. Which means that it is just as logical to assume that they haven't bothered to change the displays yet; or they are connected to old kit which does not have the new mini display ports; or that this "old technology" is not selling so they had to find something to do with it; <insert other theory here>...

The point you seem to fail to grasp is that your opinion, while respected, is not a fact. We don't have to agree with it (and vice versa, of course). If you could formulate your opinions as such, and respect those voiced by others, then we would not be having these pointless exchanges.

Listen ratpoll- It is a fact. I was there- you weren't. You can't view a glossy screen with mutiple flourescent lights bouncing off all over it. Are you that dense? Apple would put an old matte screen in the middle of their display floor for any other reason?
You simply can't view it from multiple angles with all those reflections. Geesh!
And by the way - it's the best looking screen on the floor, save the new 17" matte.

Solipsism said (and you truncated the context of his quote)



How in the world does a comment about FW somehow morph into a response about glossy screens? You've done this several times in the thread: quoted a comment about one issue, and then made a statement about an altogether different issue.

It makes it nigh impossible to determine what the hell your point is.

This thread is about glossy screens not firewire 400! What the hell are you talking about? He's failed over and over to note that he's wrong on this issue of glossy screens. He keeps bringing up other issues. And now one of his drones, you, come to protect him? You're all so ridiculous.